philosophers miss the importance of emotions - alive why

philosophers and emotions

those early philosophers who looked at
philosophy of the physical world,
its origins, what is real, what things are composed of
are interesting
but their suppositions
are outdated and only of curiosity value

with socrates and plato there was interest in behaviour and ethics...
in how people should behave

these philosophers did not appear to notice that
the difficulty of determining how people should behave
is purely due to the presence of emotions

socrates and plato
could determine that their was good and evil
and they could discuss and propose methods to reduce evil
but since they were unaware of the root cause of 'evil'
their methods of dealing with it were
inevitably hobbled

marcus aurelius and many others
stress the importance of stoicism
the reason that justifies stoicism

is that emotions untempered
are purely commands for the survival of dna
but each individual is not bound to this cause
rather each individual is bound to seek happiness

survival of dna issues commands,
these are the goals which we are urged to pursue
to provide happiness
but these goals may or may not include
communality or sustainability
it is like ordering off a menu

but the human cortex,
able to evaluate different types of happiness,
is able to realize that the  search for happiness
must include
communality or sustainability

the pursuit of happiness along with
communality and sustainability
is the essence of stoicism

most discussion about the philosophy of emotions
becomes a matter of argument about semantics and definitions
with various people proposing characteristics, categories, causes and effects of emotions
and different schools of thought with various proponents
all vying for position

but the whole point about emotions is totally missed
if the origin and purpose of emotions is not considered in the first place
to bypass the creator of emotions, dna
and the purpose dna has with emotions,
means that further discussion of emotions is useless
like trying to analyse a car
but never knowing that the purpose of the car is transport

since dna is the generator of emotion
all the discussion that vaguely implies
that we create it ourselves
is void
if our cortex created it
it would not be autonomous
it is autonomous

dna created emotions as a directive programme
to direct humans
for the survival of dna only
nothing to do with any benefit for humans
our cortex is slow to realize this
and thinks that emotions
are itself
this makes a near perfect disguise...
this ensures that dna maintains control
without being detected

emotions also keep us confused about life
and permanently given to believe
that life is a mystery if we are secular
or life is explained by god(s) if we are religious

for simpler creatures like ants
a directive programme doesn't have to be so smart
but with our developed cortex
the emotion programme has to be very clever...
...it is

one commonly held attitude is that emotions cannot be defined

given that everyone roughly knows what is meant by emotions
and there is a vast amount of common ground in that knowledge
and given their vast importance
it is not helpful to avoid defining emotions

the definition is easy
it is derivative, and lazy to avoid definition of emotions

philosophers dealings with emotions
have
listed them
categorized them
examined different types
used different names
and relationships with other concepts :
feelings, passions, pathos, affects,
wonder, beatitude, glory, competition,
strength of mind, sexuality,
understanding, affections,
concupiscible and irascible emotions,
self and other,
benevolence and malevolence,
stoicism and conflict,
emotions either good and evil,
or directed at good or evil,
moods,sentiments, calmness, turbulence,
relationship to morality,
relationship to will, reason, mind, body,
relationship to
appetites, judgements, beliefs, volitions
and knowledge, pleasure, ethics,
and relationships to
the soul, physiology, perception, violence,
perturbations,associations, passivity.

none of these or any other considerations
can be done properly without defining emotion.
none of the above philosophers were aware
that emotions are a dna programme.

therefore all their thoughts on the matter
are missing the point.
they all believe that emotions are somehow
born in our minds
in our conscious mind, our cortex,
but they fail to acknowledge
that their origin is from
an autonomous part of our mind
and that only dna can create the programme
of an autonomous neural network

since most of these philosophers didn't know
about dna or neural networks or darwinian theory,
no surprise that they did not see the importance
of autonomy,
thoughts out of control,
as emotions are...
deliberately made so
by dna

antonio damasio accords more weight to emotions
than has happened in the past
he points what he calls out descarte's error
in dividing mind and body
and calling them separate

it appears then from this
that damasio thinks that emotions are body
just like a muscle
but should not be considered separate from mind

but emotions are not in that category of body at all
they are dominant neural programs
whether anatomical, physiological or pharmacological
so the connection with descartes is non existent

damasio's expositions on the subjects
of self and mind and emotion and feeling
get cluttered with a semantic mish mash
he coins his own vocabulary
and anguishes over differences
like feeling vs emotion
things that all humans have throughout all their lives
every second, every day
humans don't need to have their vocabulary corrected
on these matters
the use of the words is convention
not for one person to establish a mortgage on

the important point is not a contorted
development of a theory
of emotion, self and its' relation to cortex

the important point is
that all emotion is a dna survival programme

and none of its genesis is cortical

all conscious cortical activity ceases
without emotion
without emotion you can not want
so you can not want to think

Socrates sees emotions as adjustable by reason
but notes that some emotions are very resistant to reason

he is prepared to admit that some emotions
can be caused and sustained through
non rational means

this is like saying that wars
can occasionally cause some damage
to people and property

all emotion is non reasoning
it is the dna preserving fuel
that lights up
thoughts, words and actions
either as positive or as negative

the thoughts, words and actions
are just subject matter
the lighting up
is emotion

Socrates then offers as reasons for
some emotions being caused and explained
through non rational  means
he says that either this is because of
a change in a person causing the person to
temporarily leaving the real world
or that an event in the world
opens up an alternative cognitive world

both these theories seem far fetched
most experiences of emotion
do not seem related to
anything but the real world

in the sense that emotions come from a part of the brain
which we have no direct control over
the description of alternative world has some value
but it is too vague and misleading
as if myths were intruding in our lives

the Panksepps "the seven sins of evolutionary biology"
suggests that proof for emotion
as an example of evolutionary biology is sparse

if our conscious cortex did not notice
that it was developing a system
that provides the beginning and the purpose
for every thought word and action
at any time in human development
or in any given life
then what was making this system
dna